RRC Archives

the heat must be starting to get to you..

from the declaration of something or other..'..and to assume among
the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...We hold these truths
to be self-evident...[blah blah blah]...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted...'

so Paul, the difference is whatever jesus tells the president they are.

good question though.

oh yeah, and whatever Yasmeen, Sandy and Meadows say is OK.

the heat is definitely starting to get to me

Cliff Heindel wrote:so Paul, the difference is whatever jesus tells the president they are

Isn't that the scary truth.

I wonder what the voices in Bush's head are telling him to do this Friday when Congress goes on break?

rhunt...are you still paranoid? please name me a singular president in the past 100 years who didn't profess to be a religous man....(maybe Nixon?)

yet virtually every arab and middle eatern country is ran by a religous nut, and no one is asking for their heads...sigh...hypocrites.

Oh piggie, how does this stuff go over your head so easily? Sure every past pres claims a faith or being religous but Bush is the first one to be controled(or take control) by the religous right so much. Its all good though because you see the Bible tells Bush and all his right wingers that the "End Times" are near so he makes all his decisions about the middle east based on that. The rapture can't come quick enough...

...oh and, "yet virtually every right-wing american in the US is ran by a religous nut, and no one is asking for their heads...sigh...hypocrites." Its weird how I can change a few words around in your statment and it totally applies to US politics...huh?

pigsteak wrote:... virtually every arab and middle eatern country is ran by a religous nut, and no one is asking for their heads...sigh...hypocrites.

I'm all for having nothing to do with any of them. I bet my side can do that before your side can do that. neener neener. Oil slut.

you def. lost me rhunt....I read your rewording of my post, and it doesn't even come close to coherent to me..sorry, I must have been blinded by my vacation.

don't even get me going on the middle east right now. US policy has failed miserably for decades over there. there is not a single president who has figured it out, left or right.

on a similar topic, one which tomdarch and alan evil love to posit, I talked to perhaps 30-40 people on my trip to the UK and Scotland about American politics. I would say that a bit over half thought Bush was an ego maniac, a quarter didn't care because Prescott and Blair were more fun to rant on, and a quarter thought Bush was the first man in ages to have the balls to stand up and tell the UN to screw themselves for their pathetic track record on every conceivable human rights issue they have ever touched.

At speaker's corner in London I met a black Muslim who thought all Muslims should move back to their muslim native countries, and that by coming to the UK they were misinterpreting scripture (by moving in with the infidels) and thereby sinning and headed to hell. Very illuminating trip for sure.

I know a Muslim who wanted me to sin.

pigsteak wrote:rhunt...are you still paranoid? please name me a singular president in the past 100 years who didn't profess to be a religous man....(maybe Nixon?)

yet virtually every arab and middle eatern country is ran by a religous nut, and no one is asking for their heads...sigh...hypocrites.

I'm afraid that you're arguing the exact opposite of what you think you are.

While you have to claim to be a protestant Christian (with the one Catholic exception) in order to get elected President in the US, el Presidente Jet Fighter Pilot really is fundamentally (pseudo-pun intended) different than any 20th century president I can think of in terms of having a fundamentalist/evangelical religious outlook. We have traditionally elected religious moderates who appeared to put facts and reason ahead of percieved divine inspiration.

The 'West' DOES want replacements for the religious nutjobs who are so powerful in the Middle East. We want moderate, secular leaders with, let's be frank, Western values like secularism and separation of mosque and state. (Kinda sounds like most Beruitis) We want extremist Islamic culture reduced and moderate culture increased.

The problem many people have with W is that when he talks about being slected by God to be president or talks about being on a 'crusade', he looks more like Ahmadinejad or the B.ush family's close friends in the House of Saud than the kind of secular leader (with a moderate religious grounding) that most of us want.

As for "virtually every" leader of the Middle East being religious nut jobs, that just isn't true. Mubarak, Olmert and Assad don't appear to be particularly religious leaders. Let's not forget that Saddam was also a non-religious leader. And if you include Turkey in the Middle East, it's army actively keeps the leadership secular. President Lahoud of Lebanon isn't a fundamentalist Christian, as far as I know. Even Gaddafi runs Lybia as a so-called "Islamic Socialist" state, but is seen as not being a religious extremist - he's more interested in pan-Arabism (even though he's a berber). We're getting far afield, but President/General Musharraf in Pakistan wants a Turkish-style secular government there.

Come to think of it, our Crusader-in-Chief may be more of a religious nut than many of the leaders of the Middle East. How's that for scary?

Thanks Tom, you have a much better way with written words than I do. Do you get it now Piggie?